===
Resolution
===
The people of the world should be highly skeptical on the issue of human induced climate change.

===
Arguments
====

1) Changes in climate have occured before.
The ice age that occured some 110,000 to 10,000 years ago [1] is evidence that drastic changes in the Earth's climate is normal. Also, the fact that when the Vikings landed in an ice-free Greenland in 986 is evidence of previous warming, as Greenland is full of ice today. [2] Therefore, there is no reason to become concerned over the fact that the climate is changing now, because it is normal for the Earth's climate fluctuate.

2) Human's understanding of climate is rather limited.
The oldest climate data that humans can gather comes from ice cores from around 800,000 years ago. [3] The Earth is around 4.55 billion years old. [4] Meaning that we, as humans, only know about 1.76% of the Earth's climate history. That is not enough to speculate or future climate trends, as we don't even know enough about past climate.

3) The issue has become too politicized.
Global Warming is controversial issue like abortion and gay marriage. Feelings on the subject are often strong and people tend to be highly opinionated. Due to this, it is almost impossible to gain an unbiased opinion on the matter. Climategate is evidence of that.

4) Global warming would cost humanity too much.
All the money that would be spent trying to avoid the harmful effects of global warming could be better spent. Trillions of dollars would have to be invested in infastructure, science and research, and emergency management in order for humans to avoid total calimity (if what Al Gore is saying is true). This money would be better spent on problems like poverty and world hunger, as we actually know that these problems exist.

I thank whoever accepts and I hope to have an intelligent, well-thought out, and enlightening debate.

I thank you for this exciting chance to debate on such an interesting topic.
I will now post my arguments in a similar fashion.
==========

1) It is true that such changes have happened before, but according to studies, (http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...) there has been a much more rapid increase in temperature rates than average, proving that the Industrial Age greatly affected the temperature and general climate of our planet.

2) The first humans evolved 200,000 years ago. Global warming is a potential threat to humanity, so we only look at more recent events that happened. Things change. Planets and stars go through different stages in their 'lifetimes'. We are lucky to see what happened a whole 600,000 years BEFORE we actually evolved. Information before this time is generally irrelevant, especially if the pattern is the same.

3) I do not fully understand the point of this statement. This does not relate to the proposition (or resolution) and does not support your argument. It seems to me that this is an excuse for poor research or if this debate is won by me.
Because global warming is now a big issue, the more reason there is to argue it. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying:
"Well, you see, global warming has a lot of opinion, and most people think that it exists, so I can't get any decent research."
Correct me if I am wrong. If you explain the relevance of this point to your position of the matter, I will be happy to provide a fair rebuttal in the next round(s).

4) This debate is about whether or not global warming is real or not, not about whether it is worth researching or not. Please remember the proposition. Because the last two arguments have not been strong and well supported, I suggest voters to have this in mind.

==========

I would like you to remember that this is a 4-round debate, so try not to spill everything out at once, as you did here as I can see due to the fact that half of the arguments were faulty (2/4).

Thank you again for such an interesting topic. I await my opponent's (hopefully) satisfying response.

1) We wouldn't know that based on the incomplete climate record of planet earth. This changes in temperature could actually be based on long cycles in the earth's climate. Cliamte is not made over a couple of years, a couple of decades, or a couple of centuries, to truly capture the scope and understand climate one needs to look at the history of climate over tens-of-thousands of years. Starting at the end of the 18th Century isn't adaquete. This graph shows that the Earth's climate has been to voliatle over the last couple of decades to form any sort of trend, in fact after global temperature reached a high in 1998, it seem to be on the decline. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...)

2) It is true that our climate data goes back further than the existence of man, but this still doesn't mean that cliamte change is worthy of human action. We need to know and take into account how the climate was before we got here for several reasons. One being so that we can assess the current climate situation and see if anything similar to it has occured in the past. If we only go back 200,000 years, then seeing a spike in global temperatures post 1700 isn't really put into context; it needs to compared with other warming spasms in earth's history. The data right know doesn't not link human activity to global climate change, meaning that it would be foolish for humans to try to stop climate change as their is no actual evidence to suggest that the problem is man-made. If we don't than we would waste resources on a problem that couldn't be adverted.

3) I'm just saying that people should be skeptical of any global warming "evidence" they hear because global warming is a controversial issue and some evidence and statistics might have hidden bias. Therefore, we should remain skeptical of the evidence of global warming and hence global warming itself.

4) I'm just saying that we should remain skeptical of global warming because not doing so might mean that the human race dump huge amounts of resources into preventing a disaster that is destined to happen (rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic). Therefore, we should remain skeptical of global warming: as it might send us on a fool's errand while more pressing issues, like hunger and poverty, are ignored.

Thank you for answering. Please excuse me for the delay in my argument - I was rather busy lately.

Due to the fact that you used the same arguments for Round 2, I assume that these are your only arguments.
You must introduce new arguments in each round.
Your conclusion rather contradicts your other statements. I will explain later on.

1) This is proving that in the past 200-300 years, temperatures reached a global high. Thank you for providing me with evidence that we HAVE affected our climate from coal to gasoline. The temperature is higher in that period compared to the rest of time. "Starting at the end of the 18th Century isn't adequate." - What does this mean? The Industrial Age started at that time, yes, but as you said before, the research about climate goes way far back. There is a general pattern, and the past centuries break the tradition and go unusually higher. Because the Earth evolves just like stars, different 'life periods' of the Earth present varied patterns. Our era presents a pattern that we have changed momentarily. I haven't said said we are going to start with the end of the 18th century.

2) 600,000 years before we got here, the same pattern was present. The data that we have DOES show that since fossil fuels started being burnt, temperatures rose dramatically. I assume that you are closed-minded and think that the only way to fix global warming would be to pump resources into it. Read this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com.... We can switch to reusable sources and curb the use of fossil fuels.

3)Ummm............thanks for the.......tip.............

STATISTICS:
1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.
2. (used with a plural verb) the numerical facts or data themselves.

4) I will dismiss this. You have said that global warming is destined to happen. Aren't you the one arguing that global warming ISN'T real?! Technically, you are saying: "Global warming is destined to happen, according to my opinion."

The rest of argument 4 is not relevant to our debate. Please start a new debate called 'Global Warming isn't worth pumping resources into', take the pro side and argue that there. I am not entertaining these extra topics.

2/4 of your 'arguments' are not technically arguments for this resolution, so I rest my case. If you re not going to forfeit the next round, please follow the correct conduct and HAVE NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. It is quite boring to waste valuable debate time on using synonyms to paraphrase your old, proved wrong arguments.

I thank my opponent for his response. However, he is acting grossly unprofessional and has horribly misrepresented my arguments.

My Opponent: "You must introduce new arguments in each round."
This is simply not the case. If you read the vast majority of debates on this website, you will find that in most cases arguments are recylced round-after-round. You have not proven my arguments wrong, so therefore there is no reason to abandon them. Though, I must remind the voters my opponent has provided no arguments of his own; only rebuttals of mine.

My Opponent: "This is proving that in the past 200-300 years, temperatures reached a global high."
Not the case, as the human race doesn't have any climate data from before 800,000 years ago. Who is to say that the warmest period is earth's history occured before that time, which would statistically be probable. My opponent is making a horrible assumption, and that assumption is that we have record of the warmest year. That is probably not the case. Since was are missing 99.24% of the Earth's climate data, then who is my opponent to say that the "current warming" is attypical. For all we know, the warmest period in the Earth's history could have been 1,000,000 years ago.

My Opponent: " Thank you for providing me with evidence that we HAVE affected our climate from coal to gasoline."
I would like my opponent to clarify what "evidence" he is speaking of, as I posted no evidence of that sort.

My Opponent: "Starting at the end of the 18th Century isn't adequate." - What does this mean?"
This means that in order to fully grasp the scope of the Earth's climate, we must examine how the climate was before the industrial age. Far, far before the industrial age. The graph that I provided doesn't do that, so my opponent is trying to prove something based off a graph that doesn't encompass the full scope of the earth's history. Actually it would only make sense for global temperatures to rise since the 1800's, as that is when the "Little Ice Age" ended. So, my opponent has proved nothing.

My Opponent: "The data that we have DOES show that since fossil fuels started being burnt, temperatures rose dramatically"
There is no evidence to show that the amount of CO2 humans release into the atmosphere has anything to do with climate change. My opponent is taking two variables (the temperature and CO2 levels) and assuming that, since they both go up on the graph at the same time, there must be a correlation. This is a fallacy.

My Opponent: " Read this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com....... We can switch to reusable sources and curb the use of fossil fuels."
Wow. I thought my opponent would be above this. The beginning paragraph of that article states: "Humans have the means to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming, a major climate report released today concludes". Wow. Using this article is what is called "circular reasoning". My opponent is, once again, ASSUMING that human-caused global warming is true to make a point about human-caused global warming, when is reality there is no evidence to prove that humans have any role in altering the climate.

My Opponent: "3)Ummm............thanks for the.......tip............."
This is grossly unprofessional of my opponent.

My Opponent: "According to this definition, statistics cannot contain bias."
They can if they are faked statistics. Such as a FAKE dog doesn't have to share any charactristics with a REAL dog because the FAKE dog is FAKE. My opponent is probably thinking what global warming statistics are FAKE? In November of 2009 e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwhich, England were made public. These e-mails contained phrases such as "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." and "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,". Doesn't this shed doubt on the authenticity of global warming data, if it does then the resolution is affirmed.

My Opponent: "I will dismiss this. You have said that global warming is destined to happen. Aren't you the one arguing that global warming ISN'T real?! Technically, you are saying: "Global warming is destined to happen, according to my opinion."

The fact of the matter is this, if global warming is happening, but it is due natural cycles, then any action by humans will be futile. My opponent will probably understand this by analogy. My opponent doesn't want the sun to come up. However, no matter what he does the sun will come up regardless. It will come up regardless because the sun coming up is a NATURAL part of the physical world. Who is my opponent to say that the current warming isn't due to long term cycles that occur has part of the NATURAL physical world. Since when was my opponent a god who knew everything and anything there is to know?

My Opponent: "Please start a new debate called 'Global Warming isn't worth pumping resources into', take the pro side and argue that there. I am not entertaining these extra topics."

Firstly, this is pertinent to the debate. I will illustrate why. Using the "sunrise analogy" we can illustrate why this is relevant. If my opponent was to try to stop the sun from coming up, it would require a large amount of energy, time, and resources. However, due to the NATURAL process of the sun rising all resources would be wasted. If my opponent was a logical person, he would take into account this before he statred trying to halt the rising of the sun. If he was logical, he would conclude that the resources that he would exhaust are not worth stopping the sun from coming up. Therefore, he would not waste those resources, if he was logical. This is similar to global warming, people should be SKEPTICAL of calls to combat global warming because it would take a large amount of resources, effort, and time. This effort would be better utilized combating more pressing and proven issues like world hunger, poverty, and terrorism.

I hope my opponent will be able to post during the final round. Since he has challenged none of my contentions above, I will go on and post my closing arguments.

===
Conclusion
===

That opponent has produced no evidence to show that the climate change that has occured during the past 200 years is due to any human activity. For all he knows, it could be caused by an increase in volcanic activity, a change in the output of the Sun, or a change in the earth's orbit. Likewise, he has not illustrated why it is nessecary for human beings to act to combat global warming. If global warming is not caused by humans and we act regardless, the human race will waste huge amounts of resources on an unstopable problem. Recent events such as "climategate" has shed doubt on global warming research and data from the past decade. When all of this is cobined the resolution stands: the human race should remain skeptical of global warming.

I thank my opponent and everybody who took the time to read this. I would like to highlite that my opponent had terrible conduct, he forfeited a round and resorted to relentess attacks. He also has produced no arguments of his own, reaffirming the resolution. As it is generally agreed that no new arguments can be posted in the last round of a DDO debate, he will be unable too. Please vote for PRO.

My Opponent: "You must introduce new arguments in each round."
This is simply not the case. If you read the vast majority of debates on this website, you will find that in most cases arguments are recylced round-after-round. You have not proven my arguments wrong, so therefore there is no reason to abandon them. Though, I must remind the voters my opponent has provided no arguments of his own; only rebuttals of mine.

Every four centuries there is an all time high in the earths temperature, then an all-time low. 12th was the alltime high, 16 century was the all time low, and now its starting to rise again, but its not even close to how hot it was in the 12th century.